Combat Superiority and Damage/HP bloat

[Sadrik]

With the talk about combat superiority being a great addition I would like to make a counter point because I do not like it. I think that these are abilities everyone should be able to do or at least have access to. Right now combat superiority looks ok because only two martial classes are being shown (rogue and fighter). But when you get multiple classes, ranger and monk and others this is going to get wonky. All other classes will have to deal with this in their design scope. I already see the rogue dealing with it by giving it insanely high sneak attack damage (2d6 at first level and +1d6/level thereafter). Ramping up character damage is not the path that I would like to see 5e go down.

So why can't a rogue, monk, ranger, barbarian or any other weapon fighting class use these abilities also? It would be so much better if these were generic abilities that anyone could select and anyone could use. If they are all tied to a unique ability used by one class it does not work. I can think of many instances where even rogue that is presented these same material could utilize these abilities. It would be so much better if they were utilized in a general sense.

Let me do a little damage analysis.

If it is true that wizards will have to memorize higher spell slots to ramp up their damage. So fireball deals 5d6 damage and say to make a 7d6 fireball they have to use a 4th level slot (I like this btw). The point here is the damage potential is greatly reduced from 1e to 3e Wizards.

Monster hit points appear to be comparable to first, second, and third edition. And even erring on being closer to first and second edition for monster hit points which were even lower than in third edition. If this is true it would be more important to have damage being more flat. I would prefer to not see an arms race on hit points. Fourth edition tackled this by making monsters having way too many hit points and characters dealing much less damage initially. Of course that didn't work out well and things evolved. Flatter hit points and damage are my preference.

My favorite feature of the new game is the flat math. This keeps everything in scope and does not make things outstrip the relative power levels. It will allow for more variable power levels of monsters to be able to fight pcs. It also clears up several weird things too, where high level saves can make mundane things like fort saves in a drinking contest, 20th level guy vs 1st level guy. Poison is deadly not based on your level but based on if the poison is deadly. So I really like that.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If I read you correctly, you simply think that:
1. CS feels like a fundamental combat mechanic and should be widely available rather than fighter exclusive.
2. Scaling damage rather than scaling attack rolls undermines the concept of flatter math.

I agree with both those general sentiments.

 

[Sadrik]

If I read you correctly, you simply think that:
1. CS feels like a fundamental combat mechanic and should be widely available rather than fighter exclusive.
2. Scaling damage rather than scaling attack rolls undermines the concept of flatter math.

I agree with both those general sentiments.

1. Yes.

2. Not exactly but mostly. Scaling attack rolls is not right either I agree with the flat math concept. What I don't agree with is a hyperbolic damage progression. I want damage to go up but I wanted to be reigned in. So not a rather than Statement like you mention.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

It's hard to say at this point if you're right. Some of those maneuvers are supposed to be in the tactical and narrative combat modules and available to everyone. The CS dice merely allow the fighter to do them while attacking. Others are supposed to be Fighter specific abilities.

But, I'll agree that CS dice could work very well as a generic combat mechanic. It's a mechanic that feels expressive of melee combat.

 

[RangerWickett]

This is an easy one. Everyone can grab, throw, trip, disarm, etc. It just requires their full action, since they're not trained well enough to do that while stabbing someone.

And they can get extra damage . . . if they crit, or roll really well.

Basically, normal people can accomplish this stuff, but if you're trained, you can accomplish it more quickly. If you spend your time learning magic, or tracking, or lockpicking, you won't be spending as much time learning clever combo attacks.

 

[Tony Vargas]

With the talk about combat superiority being a great addition I would like to make a counter point because I do not like it. I think that these are abilities everyone should be able to do or at least have access to.

That's an issue with any unique mechanic given to the fighter. There are those for whom the fighter is simply too mundane to have a unique mechanic. Anything a fighter can do, anyone should be able to do, just with smaller numbers if not magically enhanced in some way.

I think, at some point, the designers have to make a decision. Either give the fighter unique abilities that other classes don't get, and stick to their guns when people start asking why barbarians and rangers and bladesingers and clerics using Divine Power and wizards casting Tenser's Transformation don't get the same thing, OR demote the Fighter to an NPC class like the 3.x warrior, where it's inferiority would add to the game instead of detracting from it.

 

[Victim]

That's right, everything the fighter gets should be a generic mechanic everyone has.

 

[slobster]

I don't think they added rogue sneak attack damage in response to higher fighter offensive power vis a vis combat superiority. That's mixing cause and effect. Rogues have always had a backstab effect that makes them prime damage dealers. Isn't it more reasonable to assume that CS is itself a move to put fighters' damage on par with where rogues already were?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Caster damage has always scaled with level. Rogue damage scales with sneak attack. Barbarian damage scales with rage. Even paladin damage scales with smites and spell buffs. They'll just have to find mechanics for rangers and monks to keep up. Finding a fun way to implement Quarry and Flurry of Blows respectively might be a good start.

I don't think the OP is serious about not wanting damage to scale, since he complains about faster damage no longer scaling as much as it did in 3e. But if neither damage nor accuracy scales with level, how exactly are you making more powerful enemies become dead?

 

[Ellington]

I'd be okay with every class being able to use the maneuvers combat superiority allows for. Push, knock down, you name it.

However, I do think that fighters should be the only class to be able to use them in conjunction with their attacks. That's their special thing and I don't want any other class encroaching on that territory. No combat superiority dice for anyone but the fighter. The other classes already have their fancy spells, rage abilities and sneak attack.

Paladins and rangers may knock you down, but the fighter will beat you down.